The Art of War

[Marblehead]

I find in it an interesting approach on dealing with my own mind. 

That caused me a chuckle.  We never know what that sucker is going to do, do we?

[manitou]

I find in it an interesting approach on dealing with my own mind. 

 

 

And as such, you are living in the wu wei.  Wouldn't the distant dynamics of the collective behavior of war be the same as our minds, once cultivated and still?  I'm trying to think of a collective in nature that would demonstrate the workings of the distant dynamics.  A beehive, maybe?  An anthill?  Maybe I'm trying to pee up a rope here.

Edited August 29, 2015 by manitou

[dust]

Its not intended to be made sense of? sorry, I thought that was the thrust of the thread. Carry on.

 

I just mean that these 2 different Chinese versions appear to be diametrically opposed in meaning. If this is the case, one or other must be correct, but not both.

 

I think that the question is: Which makes more sense? And I think the answer is: The older version.

Edited August 30, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[dust]

and leaving the reader to be the Artist. Hence its the Art of war.

 

兵法  could also be translated "Skills", "Rules", or "Methods" of War (or of "Military" or "Weapons").

 

I would urge people not to read too deeply into the "Art" part of the common translation -- it is a treatise, not a painting!

 

 

You may indeed come to the most perfect literal definition of the passages, thats your thing,, but I think we are supposed to come to a more holistic understanding ... and to me ,thats what makes it special writing.

 

Well.. we do certainly disagree

 

IMO, a holistic understanding of the text comes from a clear understanding of the language and concepts the author used.

 

Sunzi was not Laozi -- SZ's language is very much more clear and easily interpreted. Obviously not entirely clear and easy, but very rarely intentionally vague or layered. Again, it's a treatise, not a poem. Most difficulties in translation lie in the inherent ambiguity (and ancientness) of the language of Sunzi's time more than any intentional doublespeak.

 

If we have versions with very large differences in language, it is because someone fucked up along the way somewhere, not because Sunzi wanted to confuse us with different versions.

 

But we can agree to disagree.. in fact, I appreciate the very different perspectives on TDB -- that's why I'm still here reading and discussing..! It's been very helpful..

Edited August 30, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[dawei]

兵法  could also be translated "Skills", "Rules", or "Methods" of War (or of "Military" or "Weapons").

 

I would urge people not to read too deeply into the "Art" part of the common translation -- it is a treatise, not a painting!

 

Fair enough point... 

 

I think art is still the rightest word choice personally, but it just doesnt matter. Yeah youre correct, we couldnt disagree more. Thats fine, But I wasnt saying his point is to confuse us, Im saying he isnt taking responsibility off the reader. One might crush the oppositions center only to have created a mess and be surrounded,

 

And I agree with this... and think of it more like 'artful' or 'cunning'.   Besides, the sound of "The Art of War" with the three letters of each word is itself an artful wording

 

I also like your point of his not taking responsibility for the reader; I think that is a core method of chinese thinking.  it is an expression of what one has discovered and while it may be laid out more clearly then not, the reader/listener is to see what they discover given the same or similar circumstance.   My impression is that there is something very circumstantial about the way chinese think and communicate and that leaves a multi-faceted interpretation at times.

[dawei]

 I dont know why this is said ,

 

In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.

 

 I smashed an egg with a grindstone !  what indirect action is required? 

 

I take it to be a reference of the whole army (direct) vs the smaller groupings (indirect).

 

If the whole army is coordinated they are following a single, direct engagement of attack... but if the smaller groups each have a slightly different approach they can take, this would create a sense of chaos to the opponent... how would you know what to expect next or from where.   So I think the root meaning is about being flexible (indirect) and not too rigid (direct).

[Stosh]

;

 

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[dawei]

Hmmm I hadnt thought of that... I was juggling the idea that indirect actions require the unwitting assistance of the enemy, deceit, or some kind of reconciliation. as Mh suggested. The direct application being just the plain ol application of brute force.

Ill have to think on this other though. .. guerilla tactics ?

 

I see the two ideas overlapping... brute force is more a singular direct attack of the army; the indirect can employ deceit by smaller groups more easily.

 

My take is simply that the opening lines are introducing a point made by later lines... very similar to LZ style in this way.

[Stosh]

'

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yes, but the key is to not lose.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

In defense, gain need not be made as long as we take no losses.

 

In offense, the prime purpose was to gain something.  If you don't gain you have lost.  (Resources spent.)

 

In offense, the gains must be greater than the resources spent else you have lost.

 

Chose your wars wisely.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

In defense you look weak.

That would cause you to take losses.

 

You cant defend with no loss.

Why not?  All you have to do is appear to be one really mean MF.  That will scare most offenders off.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[dawei]

Ah , as in the enemy fails, loses coherency , breaks apart, the collective will shattered. Ok . Brings us back to losing the war, rather than who wins it.

 

Yes, but the key is to not lose.

 

Is it? Once in the fight you expend money and men, whether you brought it on ,or it came to you.

 

In defense, gain need not be made as long as we take no losses.

 

In offense, the prime purpose was to gain something.  If you don't gain you have lost.  (Resources spent.)

 

In defense you look weak. You cant defend with no loss. Besides,, one does not wisely choose wars.

 

The idea of gain vs loss (I know we're really talking about whether you win or lose) seems to be of a relativistic nature like Yin vs Yang.

 

There are two ways to gain more Yang:

1. Add more Yang (offensive)

2. Reduce Yin (defensive)

 

I think the outcomes of war are similar... you can be in a defensive position which is technically more advantageous and in 'effect' a more offensive position on some level.  I think of the scorched earth retreat where you burn anything useful or just draw the opponent into territory and conditions for which they are ill-equipped... now nature has become a part of your regime:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Winter

[woodcarver]

Hey, Lao Tzu was right. Sorry I left!

[Marblehead]

Yes it would be a loss, thats my point.

Being intimidating, isnt actively defending, but may incur cost as in the arms race , You could also be allies , uninvolved , untempting etc. Not having anything worth taking ,, well ,I dont consider it a defense, its more a lack of need to defend. .. But if I match definitions with you , then your points valid to me as well.

Isn't it great when we both have the same view that things look to you just as they look to me?

 

We can argue about the cost of maintaining a strong defensive posture but I still suggest that if no additional resources are needed when threatened then there was no cost.  It had already been decided to be maintained and paid for anyhow.

 

And even if we are never attacked we can't say that the cost wasn't worth it.  Perhaps its existence prevented any thought of attack.

[Marblehead]

 

... you can be in a defensive position which is technically more advantageous and in 'effect' a more offensive position on some level.

It has been said (no recall of origin) that the best offense is a good defense.  I stand by that.

[Marblehead]

Hey, Lao Tzu was right. Sorry I left!

Caused me a chuckle.  Welcome back.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Well, if there weren't so many ass holes on the planet one wouldn't have to devote any resources for defense.  Everyone would just mind their own business and leave others alone.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh